Creationists on Texas Panel for Biology Textbooks

[Dinner]

This could get interesting with Rick Perry's appointee making the final decision. The statement by the Biology professor is perfect.

AUSTIN, Tex. — One is a nutritionist who believes “creation science” based on
biblical principles should be taught in the classroom. Another is a chemical
engineer who is listed as a “Darwin Skeptic” on the Web site of the Creation
Science Hall of Fame. A third is a trained biologist who also happens
to be a fellow of the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based center of the
intelligent-design movement and a vice president at an evangelical ministry in
Plano, Tex.
.................................................. .................................................. .........................
At the public hearing this month, Michael Singer, a biology professor at the University of Texas who teaches courses to nonscience majors, said his students were often nervous about learning evolution. “I tell them that the Book of Job says that their faith will be tested,” he said. “You don’t need faith to believe what the evidence suggests. You need faith to believe what the evidence doesn’t suggest.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/ed...anted=all&_r=0

[Dinner]

Family Guy got it right.



And people wonder why the Jesusland map was made.



And just because I can.

[Sava]

You aren't helping.

[Guynemer]

[Elok]

The other day, I was in a high school library. They had "The Descent of Man" on a shelf, and then "Defeating Darwinism" a few feet down from it. For, uh, balance, I guess. Perhaps they were spaced apart that way to keep them from fighting?

[Dinner]

Sadly, there are seven states which want to teach religious creationism in science classrooms.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/03/9-bills-creationism-classroom

[The Mad Monk]

I was thinking about that just last night.

Without an uncreated creator somewhere down the line, how does any universe origin not end up as "turtles all the way down"?

[DaShi]

Negative conclusion from affirmative premises.

[Lorizael]

I was thinking about that just last night.

Without an uncreated creator somewhere down the line, how does any universe origin not end up as "turtles all the way down"?

Easily. There's no particular reason why logic should apply to anything "outside" the universe, so there's no particular reason why the universe's creation requires any rules that make sense to us (or any rules at all).

[The Mad Monk]

Which form of logic are you using there?

Also how do you consider a priori knowledge?

[Lorizael]

Which form of logic are you using there?

Err, any kind will do. The point is that what we consider possible and impossible is grounded very much in the realities of the universe. But if there exists some place in which the physical laws we're used to don't apply, then there's no reason that anything we're familiar with should apply. So sure, maybe the universe doesn't need a creator because apple cheese monkey pies. It doesn't have to make sense, because making sense only has meaning within the confines of the universe.

Also how do you consider a priori knowledge?

What most people consider to be a priori knowledge is nothing more than confirmation bias expressed through tautologies.

[Hauldren Collider]

Wrong # of elephants

[MOBIUS]

For a moment there I misread the title as: "Creationists on Texas Panel for Bigotry Textbooks"

[DaShi]

Wrong # of elephants

You can't see them behind the other elephants.

[Elok]

Err, any kind will do. The point is that what we consider possible and impossible is grounded very much in the realities of the universe. But if there exists some place in which the physical laws we're used to don't apply, then there's no reason that anything we're familiar with should apply. So sure, maybe the universe doesn't need a creator because apple cheese monkey pies. It doesn't have to make sense, because making sense only has meaning within the confines of the universe.

I have a similar objection to the "fine-tuning" argument.